¶ … Awareness in Multi-Casualty Incidents: Theory Development from the Field Instructions: Use this form to critique the qualitative oral research presentation, the student in each of the areas specified below should document his/her critique under Comments. Be sure to comment on the study's strengths and weaknesses.

Has the research problem been clearly identified?

Does the problem have significance for nursing, re. practice, administration, education or policy?

Is the statement of purpose concise and clearly stated?

Does the literature review critically appraise and compare key studies?

Does the research describe a theoretical or conceptual framework for the study?

Comments:

The research problem has been clearly identified, first in the title and then in the "research problem" section. This section clearly identifies the problem, which does have significance for multicasualty incident (MCI) management. Relationship to nursing theory is discussed in depth after the discussion section of the presentation. The statement of purpose is concisely and clearly stated in the "research problem" section. The literature review section is brief, and does not compare the key studies. However, some critical appraisal is offered. The author notes that "no theory existed in the literature specific to" the subject at hand, which is situational awareness.

METHOD:

Is the research design appropriate for the research question?

Is the target or accessible population identified and described?

What type of sampling plan was used?

Is the setting or study group adequately described? Is the setting appropriate for the research?

How were data collected? Were the data collection procedures appropriate?

Comments:

The research design is qualitative, which is appropriate for the research question. The author points out that qualitative research is appropriate for discovering process and is appropriate especially when there is no prior theory. The criteria for sample selection and target population is clearly outlined. However, the setting is not discussed with any detail. The data was collected by the researcher, using QSR Nvivo 8®. This also included coding and interview data.

RESULTS

What are the major themes of the study?

Do the themes fit with the raw data?

Do the themes fit the research question and purpose?

Discuss various aspects of the study's trustworthiness (credibility, dependability, transferability & confirmability).

Comments:

The major themes of the study include situations that are independent variables such as shooting, weather events, and heat-related injuries. The number of casualties is a dependent variable. Categories are clearly outlined and discussed in depth. The themes fit with the raw data, and also fit the research question and purpose. Various aspects of the study's trustworthiness such as credibility, dependability, transferability, and confirmability are discussed in the section on "limitations."

DISCUSSION:

What were the main findings?

What do the findings mean?

What evidence is there that the results and the interpretations are valid?

How do the results compare with prior knowledge on the topic?

What can be concluded about the findings via-a-vis their use in nursing practice, in nursing theory, and in future nursing research?

Comments:

Main findings include the importance of triage, empathy, and the assurance of safety. Findings imply that situational awareness improves multicasualty incident management. Issues such as establishing and maintaining control are discussed. The author quotes from the interviews as evidence that the results are valid. The results substantiate the hypothesis, and conclusions can be drawn about applying this knowledge to nursing practice. Contextual and situational issues are crucial in nursing during crisis situations.

PRESENTATION STYLE:

Is the presentation clear and concise, well organized, and properly paced?

Does the researcher engage the audience in his/her oral research presentation?

Does the researcher use appropriate methodologies, re: slides, diagrams, tables, figures?

Does the researcher provide a meaningful summation at the end of his/her oral research presentation?

Comments:

The presentation was delivered with great clarity and precision. It felt concise but thorough. It was also organized and paced well. The research engaged the audience by speaking about things that were not printed on the slide. The audience was engaged in the presentation because of a good use of visuals such as charts and diagrams. There were also some pictures, which, although irrelevant, added visual material. The author provided a meaningful...

Be sure to comment on the study's strengths and weaknesses.
INTRODUCTION:

Has the research problem been clearly identified?

Does the problem have significance for nursing, re. practice, administration, education or policy?

Is the statement of purpose, research questions, and/or hypotheses concise and clearly stated?

Does the literature review critically appraise and compare key studies?

Does the research describe a theoretical or conceptual framework for the study?

Comments:

The research problem is not spelled out, but is implied by a thorough identification of the hypotheses and the purpose of the study. The purpose of the study and stated as follows: "To determine if the use of a rocking bed with maternal intrauterine sounds would decrease clinical symptoms of withdrawal in drug-affected infants."

The authors clearly point out how the problem has significance for nursing practice. Hypotheses are stated clearly on separate slides, and include three components. The literature review is thorough but does not critically appraise or compare key studies. However, the author spends a lot of time identifying the theoretical framework for the study.

METHOD:

Is the research design appropriate for the research question?

Is the target or accessible population identified and described?

What type of sampling plan was used? Is the sampling plan adequate?

Is the setting or study group adequately described? Is the setting appropriate for the research question?

How were data collected? Were the data collection procedures appropriate?

Were the data analytic procedures adequately described?

Comments:

The research design is appropriate as a randomized experimental trial. The site/inclusion criteria for the target population are clearly outlined. Sampling used power analysis. The sampling plan was adequate for this type of study. The setting is discussed along with site selection criteria. The independent and dependent variables are listed clearly, and the procedure is clearly described. The survey instrument is included in the presentation, and so is the data collection sheet. The data collection procedures were appropriate for the study. Analysis of data used a one-way ANOVA, and was described well enough.

RESULTS:

Does the study include any descriptive statistics? Do these statistics sufficiently describe the major characteristics of the researcher's data set?

Does the study include any inferential statistics? Was a statistical test performed for each of the hypotheses or research questions?

Were the selected statistical tests appropriate?

Were the results of any statistical tests significant?

Were tables/figures used judiciously to summarize statistical information? Are the tables/figures clearly presented?

Comments:

Descriptive statistics are included, including means and standard deviations. These sufficiently describe the major characteristics of the researcher's data set. The study includes chi square analyses and inferential statistics. A statistical test was performed for each of the research hypotheses, and the selected tests were appropriate to the hypotheses and data collection methods. The author clearly points out when the test results were statistically significant. Tables and figures are used extensively, to present not just the raw data but also the statistical analyses.

DISCUSSION:

What were the main findings?

What do the findings mean?

What evidence is there that the results and the interpretations are valid? What limitations might threaten validity?

How do the results compare with prior knowledge on the topic?

What can be concluded about the findings vis-a-vis their use in nursing practice, in nursing theory, and in future nursing research?

Comments:

The main findings are that for days 3 and 5 there were no significant differences; only on day 7 were differences observed Similarly, sleep disturbances were only noted on day 7. However, with motor signs and symptoms, there were no significant differences over the course of the experiment. Brazelton days were statistically significant after day 7. The findings suggest that over time, the rocking action may be over-stimulating. However, the author addresses other possible intervening variables. The author also admits the limitations of the study clearly, such as the small sample size, limited robustness of the…